Next month I'll be going to an academic conference on Google Spain and the "Right to be Forgotten" (actually, "right to be delinked") so I thought I'd better organise my thoughts on why, as a provider and user of communications and information services, the decision worries me. And I am much more worried by the decision itself and the train of proposed law it seems to have created than by how Google has responded.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which received Royal Assent last week, has some network-related provisions among its various powers relating to terrorism. Section 21 adds further "relevant internet data" to the list of information that public telecommunications operators may be required to retain about the use of their networks and systems.
The undertaking that Google has recently made to the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) provides some idea of the complexity of negotiations that have been going on between the company and various European data protection regulators over the past couple of years.
I'll be presenting a workshop and discussion session on 'From Mobile Device Policy to BYOD' at Jisc's Digifest on Monday 9th March. Come along and hear why Bring Your Own Device may not be as scary as you think
Tilmann Haak's presentation at this week's TF-CSIRT/FIRST meeting was on incorporating security requirements into software development processes using agile methods, but his key points seem relevant to any style of software or system development:
I've done a couple of presentations this week, comparing the risks and benefits of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) with those that research and education organisations already accept in the ways we use organisation-managed mobile devices. As the title of my talk in Dundee asked, "What’s the Difference?"
During a recent conversation about learning analytics it occurred to me that it might be helpful to analyse how universities use student data in terms of the different justifications provided by UK and European Data Protection Law.
"Is scanning lawful?" sounds as if it ought to be a straightforward question with a simple answer. However investigating it turns out to be a good illustration of how tricky it is to apply real-world analogies to the Internet, and the very different results that different countries' legislators (and courts) can come up with when they try.
Recently we had one of our regular reviews of security incidents that have affected the company in the past few months. All three – one social engineering attack, one technical one, and one equipment loss – were minor, in that only limited information or systems were put at risk; all were detected and fixed, to the best of our knowledge, before anything was accessed that shouldn't have been. If we had only been looking at data breaches they probably wouldn't even have made it to the agenda.